The origins of universal jurisdiction can be traced back to international law and customary practices. Historical examples include the prosecution of pirates, who were considered outlaws under the laws of all nations. Modern applications emerged following World War II, particularly with the establishment of international tribunals like the Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, which prosecuted Axis leaders for war crimes. These trials set a precedent for holding individuals accountable for severe violations of international law, regardless of their nationality or the location of the crimes.
Universal jurisdiction is often invoked in cases where a state lacks jurisdiction by territorial or personal ties but believes the crime warrants prosecution. For instance, some countries have prosecuted former dictators or military leaders for torture or human rights abuses committed abroad. However, the application of universal jurisdiction remains controversial. Critics argue that it can lead to selective enforcement, political interference, or abuse of power, particularly if a state uses it to target individuals from countries it opposes. Supporters, on the other hand, emphasize its role in ensuring accountability for the most heinous crimes and preventing impunity.
The principle is recognized in various national legal systems, though its scope and application vary. Some countries, such as Spain and Belgium, have historically been more active in invoking universal jurisdiction, while others have restricted or abolished it due to concerns over sovereignty and diplomatic tensions. International law, including treaties like the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), also acknowledges universal jurisdiction for certain crimes, though its enforcement often depends on the willingness of states to cooperate.